Nick wrote:
> ISTM that, apart from the various looped <ch>'s, the
> "joinedness"
> ("ligaturation"?) between strokes is the main thing
> you're interested in
> transcribing, so that some effort can be made to
> systematically comprehend
> the body of the VMS as glyphs rather than strokes. Is that fair?
A little more complicated than that, but I have a set of
"glyph-building" rules that can be expressed in code.
>
> The core question then is: would your purposes be
> better achieved by adding
> a single <join> character to EVA (and mapping to your
> own set of glyphs in
> software) or by defining a glyph font which is forever
> a moving target?
My reasons for undertaking this journey are being expressed in an
e-mail I'm about to post, but suffice it to say that the "glyph
font" will forever be a moving target if certain concepts are not
"nailed to the gate", Martin Luther style. Even Luther did so on
behalf of his abbey, not as an act on his own, so the process of
debate and concensus, no matter how arduous, is a necessary one
that needs to accomodate as many participants as possible. Never
fear, we're moving in the right direction, and your idea is a very
good one I believe we can modify to accomodate even the papists!
:-)
GC